PRESIDENT PROMISES ANTI-CONVERSION BILL WILL NOT

C O N F I D E N T I A L COLOMBO 001292

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/26/2015
TAGS: KIRF PHUM PGOV CE
SUBJECT: PRESIDENT PROMISES ANTI-CONVERSION BILL WILL NOT
MOVE FORWARD

Classified By: Ambassador Jeffrey J. Lunstead for reasons 1.4 (b) and (
d).


1. (C) Ambassador and other Chiefs of Mission from Tokyo
Co-Chairs (UK for EU, Norway, Japan) called on President
Kumaratunga July 25 to discuss Peace Process issues. At
the end of that discussion Ambassador said he wanted to
raise a separate issue, that of the anti-conversion bill.
Foreign Minister Kadirgamar interjected to say he was glad
Ambassador had raised that subject because they could now
clear up some confusion. He said that after Ambassador had
raised the subject with him last week and mentioned that
Government anti-conversion bill had been gazetted,
he had brought it up in Cabinet two days later even
though it was not on the agenda, since he and some
other Ministers were themselves confused as to what
was happening.


2. (C) President Kumaratunga then said that although the
Bill had been gazetted, it had not yet been tabled in
Parliament. Buddhist Affairs Minister Wickremanayake had
gazetted the Bill, she said, because at that time the
Government was under pressure from its coalition partner,
the Buddhist-chauvinist JVP. (The JVP has since left the
coalition.) But, she said, at the Cabinet meeting, it had
been agreed that the Government Bill would not be tabled.
Wickremanayake had promised not to do so.


3. (C) Kumaratunga continued that a Parliamentary debate
on the JHU anti-conversion bill was scheduled for
August 10, but that this was through an adjournment
motion, where any Member of Parliament can ask for a
debate on a subject. Debate through an adjournment
motion was limited to two hours, however, and did
not lead to a vote. The JHU bill was still bottled
up in a Parliamentary Committee, and they intended
to keep it there. At any rate, the Supreme Court
had found all but one clause in the JHU Bill to be
unconstitutional.


4. (C) Foreign Minister added that the Government Bill was
a terrible bill and if tabled would be challenged in the
Supreme Court, which would almost certainly find major
portions of it to be unconstitutional. Nonetheless, it
would be better to avoid tabling. He added that a number
of Ministers were relieved at the outcome because they
dreaded the thought of having to vote on the Bill.


5. (C) Ambassador thanked the President for her assurances
and said that this would ease the minds of many in the US.
Foreign Minister added that it would be helpful if groups
in the US were careful in their public statements on this
issue, since raising the profile could put the Government
in an awkward position.


6. (C) COMMENT: President Kumaratunga was categorical in
her assertion that the Bill would not go forward, and seems
to have extracted a promise to that effect from the
Buddhist Affairs Minister. Given this strong assurance, we
believe that a USG statement at this time is not necessary
and could indeed be counter-productive.
LUNSTEAD